Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Researchers Experiment With Explosives To Fight Wildfires

Soulskill posted about 3 months ago | from the my-kind-of-stupid dept.

Earth 80

aesoteric writes: "Australian researchers are a step closer to demonstrating whether explosives — rather than water — can be used to extinguish an out-of-control wildfire. The research uses a blast of air to knock the flame off its fuel source — a technique used in the oil & gas industry for decades. The latest tests were conducted in New Mexico. Firefighters are reported to be quietly optimistic about the research's potential."

cancel ×

80 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

A good blow..... (1)

OutOnARock (935713) | about 3 months ago | (#47059057)

Always puts out the fire....

.....for a while, anyhow.....

Re:A good blow..... (1)

show me altoids (1183399) | about 3 months ago | (#47059157)

To paraphrase Homer: To explosions! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems.

Re:A good blow..... (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 3 months ago | (#47059327)

Fires are already on fire, so...

EXPLOSIONS!

That's WHY people become researchers: "Now, what can we BURN or DETONATE?"

Re:A good blow..... (1)

Cryacin (657549) | about 3 months ago | (#47060413)

The bushfires... Nuke them from space, it's the only way to be sure.

Re:A good blow..... (2)

lazy genes (741633) | about 3 months ago | (#47061979)

It will only be a matter of time before they try something that includes golf balls. I predict they will eventually freeze a golf ball size mixture of corn starch and water. Pack about a million of them in a c130 and drop them in front of the fire at 200 mph. The frozen objects will collect moisture out of the atmosphere on the way down and rip all the canopy off the trees when they hit. When they melt they will produce a cool fog that will cool down the underbrush.

Re:A good blow..... (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 3 months ago | (#47062099)

I see a "Mythbusters" in this....

Re:A good blow..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47063287)

Unless the substrate is hard enough to shatter the corn starch balls and create small fuel-air explosions all around the drop site.

Re:A good blow..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47065743)

corn starch is flammable. Better to use something inert.

Re:A good blow..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47059381)

Sweet! So it is now:

Q: How do you put out a forest fire?
A: Drop a hurricane on it.

Who's the lead researcher? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47059083)

Michael Bay?

Re:Who's the lead researcher? (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 3 months ago | (#47059353)

Don't know, but he will definitely be there for the first deployment with lotion and tissue...

Why are Australian firefighters working ... (1)

Nutria (679911) | about 3 months ago | (#47059139)

in New Mexico?

Re:Why are Australian firefighters working ... (2)

overshoot (39700) | about 3 months ago | (#47059309)

Could it possibly be because fire season is starting in New Mexico, and ending in Oz?

Re:Why are Australian firefighters working ... (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 3 months ago | (#47059435)

Because there's a lot of wildfire expertise, and people pay top dollar to save their mcmansions?

Re:Why are Australian firefighters working ... (1)

overshoot (39700) | about 3 months ago | (#47059931)

Classic NM McMansion [google.com] out in fire country.

Re:Why are Australian firefighters working ... (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 3 months ago | (#47059455)

Why are Australian firefighters working in New Mexico?

The researchers are Australian, not the firefighters. In then American Southwest, most firefighters are Mexicans.

Re:Why are Australian firefighters working ... (1)

Nutria (679911) | about 3 months ago | (#47059519)

The researchers are Australian, not the firefighters.

Don't the researchers have any firefighting experience?

Re:Why are Australian firefighters working ... (1)

avandesande (143899) | about 3 months ago | (#47060235)

There aren't many places that have the protocols and skills to handle energetic materials safely.

Re:Why are Australian firefighters working ... (1)

budgenator (254554) | about 3 months ago | (#47061477)

There aren't many places that have the protocols and skills to handle energetic materials safely.

All they have to do is watches a Mythbuster's marathon and they'd know what not to do.

Rule # 1 of KSP (1)

Triklyn (2455072) | about 3 months ago | (#47059143)

if it doesn't work at first, add more rockets.

Good advice for any situation.

You bet they are "quietly optimistic".. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47059149)

The reason it works with oil fires is that the oil cools rather FAST once the flame is out.

Wood... not so much. It is a good insulator and will preserve the heat - thus the vapor from wood will still be there - and HOT. Once the oxygen gets to it, it will flame again.

Re:You bet they are "quietly optimistic".. (1)

drumlight (1244276) | about 3 months ago | (#47059223)

I bet they are; its proven incredibly effective on Sharknados and a wildfire should be a much simpler threat.

Re:You bet they are "quietly optimistic".. (1)

budgenator (254554) | about 3 months ago | (#47061573)

Yeah but firenadoes [wikipedia.org] , now that's some kick-ass bad shit.

Re:You bet they are "quietly optimistic".. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47059245)

No kidding. This should be obvious to anyone with any knowledge of fire. This guy is a snake oil salesman.

Re:You bet they are "quietly optimistic".. (1)

Ichijo (607641) | about 3 months ago | (#47059301)

[Wood] is a good insulator and will preserve the heat - thus the vapor from wood will still be there - and HOT.

This assumes the wood will still be there and therefore the explosion wasn't quite big enough.

Re:You bet they are "quietly optimistic".. (1)

BattleApple (956701) | about 3 months ago | (#47059593)

"Fire is very fast moving if it gets up into the tree tops. If the fire is still smouldering or burning on the forest floor, it's moving at a fraction of the speed, giving emergency services extra time to come in with water bombing or ground operations," Doig says.

Re:You bet they are "quietly optimistic".. (4, Insightful)

overshoot (39700) | about 3 months ago | (#47059853)

In NM, as in Oz, a lot of fires start as brushfires -- no wood, no particular heat retention -- stop it even briefly and it doesn't get into the forests.

Re:You bet they are "quietly optimistic".. (2)

radtea (464814) | about 3 months ago | (#47062247)

In NM, as in Oz, a lot of fires start as brushfires -- no wood, no particular heat retention -- stop it even briefly and it doesn't get into the forests.

Reading between the lines of TFA this appears an extremely optimistic reading of the research, which so far involves blowing a flame off a propane source, and appears in the long term to be directed at separating flame from tree-tops, with the idea that this will slow down the rate of spread, not put the fire out. It will give emergency services more time to respond by quenching the fast-moving tree-top phase of the fire.

The problem is that there will still be glowing coals on the woody stems, even if they are just brush (unless it is a pure grass fire, which is pretty rare, and even then there are usually bushes with woody stems involved.) Those coals will have the potential to re-ignite the fire, although the goal of slowing things down may be achieved, and it may well be enough to both save lives and to allow firefighters to get things under control.

This is an interference measure, not an extinguisher.

Re:You bet they are "quietly optimistic".. (1)

torkus (1133985) | about 3 months ago | (#47060117)

Yah, I can only imagine this will be useful in some very very specific situations.

In an oil or gas flame, the heat of combustion generally ignites the incoming fuel. In a forest fire you have an *immense* amount of latent heat even if you were to completely extinguish the flames for a brief moment. Similar reason to why they keep spraying down after a house fire is technically out.

Re:You bet they are "quietly optimistic".. (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 3 months ago | (#47061111)

Yah, I can only imagine this will be useful in some very very specific situations.

In an oil or gas flame, the heat of combustion generally ignites the incoming fuel. In a forest fire you have an *immense* amount of latent heat even if you were to completely extinguish the flames for a brief moment. Similar reason to why they keep spraying down after a house fire is technically out.

Seems to me this wouldn't be very useful in a groundfire or rootfire, but could be very useful in slowing a firestorm (vortex of flame whirling through the branches). This technique would drive it back down to the ground where they can use chemicals and water to contain it.

Re:You bet they are "quietly optimistic".. (1)

careysub (976506) | about 3 months ago | (#47061191)

Yah, I can only imagine this will be useful in some very very specific situations.

In an oil or gas flame, the heat of combustion generally ignites the incoming fuel. In a forest fire you have an *immense* amount of latent heat even if you were to completely extinguish the flames for a brief moment. Similar reason to why they keep spraying down after a house fire is technically out.

But the "very very specific situations" might actually be common problems that firefighters encounter. I can imagine several possibilities about how this general idea could be employed to good advantage.

Fuel structure is critical in determining the intensity of a fire. Consider burning forest or brush - the vertically held trunks and spread lateral limbs of the former, and the branched framework of the later, are perfect ways to hold fuel in place so that it can burn quickly and intensely. If you can blast the vegetation into pieces, now lying on the ground, the fire intensity will be dramatically reduced once burning resumes.

Or consider a helicopter dropping a line of charges in front of a rapidly advancing fire in rough terrain. Boom! An instant firebreak, where no man could get to, or do it in the available time, and without risking the lives of smoke jumpers.

And I bet situations are not rare where simply knocking the flames out temporarily, and thus shutting off the radiant heat, could enable firefighters to get control of situation which would otherwise be uncontrollable.

Re:You bet they are "quietly optimistic".. (2)

budgenator (254554) | about 3 months ago | (#47061795)

Clearing fire breaks with explosive is likely to be disappointing, to drop a tree you want to place a 1 pound block of TNT or C4 on the side of the tree you want it to fall in then wrap Det cord [wikipedia.org] around the tree and TNT 10 times, then run the det cord up the tree about 8 feet to a 1 pound kicker charge on the side away from where you want the tree to fall. While I love blowing shit up, a chainsaw is faster and easier.
Something like a Bangalore torpedo [wikipedia.org] would knock out a short section of brush to 3 or 4 m wide.

Re:You bet they are "quietly optimistic".. (1)

careysub (976506) | about 3 months ago | (#47066903)

A better example than the Bangalore torpedo would be the mine clearing line charge [wikipedia.org] which is capable of clearing a full width fire break (20 feet [usda.gov] ) under many conditions.

While chain saws, and wrapping trees with C4 is effective, where feasible, there are many situations where it is not (inaccessible, imminent fire danger precludes it, it is already on fire).

And there is other interesting prior art [buch-der-synergie.de] showing effectiveness on suppressing wild fires.

And the idea that blast charges can't knock down trees in an area (if that is what you are implying) is simply incorrect. The famous BLU-82 "Daisy Cutter" [peteralanlloyd.com] certainly could. Now they wouldn't be dropped daisy cutters, but a system tailored for this application might be effective. Also note that standing dead trees and trees that have undergone a certain amount of pyrolysis are not going to be as resilient and healthy tree and be easier shatter.

All told, I think the dismissive skepticism I see on this thread to be unfounded.

Re:You bet they are "quietly optimistic".. (1)

budgenator (254554) | about 3 months ago | (#47069305)

It's not that you can't knock down trees, it's just that the shape of the trunk (basicaly round) and the wood being wet and more flexable makes it easy to overestimate the effects of a given explosion on trees.

Re:You bet they are "quietly optimistic".. (1)

overshoot (39700) | about 3 months ago | (#47061777)

Yah, I can only imagine this will be useful in some very very specific situations.

You mean, like when a fire is crowning? Crown fires are fast and account for most (almost all?) of the firefighter fatalities (including the recent one at Yarnell where someone I used to work with died.) Interrupt that process, even briefly, and you may save some firefighters on the ground.

Finally. I have been saying this for years. (2)

wjcofkc (964165) | about 3 months ago | (#47059153)

I have always wondered why this is not standard practice. If you want to extinguish a candle, the established method is to blow it out. After all, we used explosives to put out the Iraqi oil fires. Carpet bomb it, massively. If the fire is already to big for that to be practical, carpet bomb as wide and as much of a perimeter as you can and let it burn itself out.

Re:Finally. I have been saying this for years. (2)

AdamThor (995520) | about 3 months ago | (#47059729)

I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Re:Finally. I have been saying this for years. (2)

Triklyn (2455072) | about 3 months ago | (#47060781)

brill, if there is no forest, there is no fire :)

Back fires (2)

gurps_npc (621217) | about 3 months ago | (#47059189)

Right now the main way fire fighters fight large forest fires is by setting other small fires destroying fuel. (There is never enough water or similar substance to put out a real forest fire.)

This is basically just a faster way to do that - by removing the oxygen as opposed to the carbon from the carbon+oxygen+heat equation.

Re:Back fires (2)

pr0fessor (1940368) | about 3 months ago | (#47059395)

I'm not so sure this is as good an idea as it sounds. In a controlled situation sure but a wild fire in a heavily wooded area you may end up just spreading it around.

Re:Back fires (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 3 months ago | (#47059551)

In a controlled situation sure but a wild fire in a heavily wooded area you may end up just spreading it around.

The explosive is not tossed into the center of the fire. It is detonated just in front of the fire's path. So it not only blows out the fire, but it pushes burning wood backwards, into the already scorched area. Then the firefighters rush in to extinguish the remaining smaller flames.

Re:Back fires (1)

pr0fessor (1940368) | about 3 months ago | (#47059713)

Right but wildfires are not always the most predictable thing.

Oh, man (2)

overshoot (39700) | about 3 months ago | (#47059197)

Do I know some people in NM [nmt.edu] who are going to love this! And the fact that theyr'e next door to the NM firefighters' training academy ain't gonna hurt, either.

Re:Oh, man (1)

plopez (54068) | about 3 months ago | (#47060211)

They actually have classes in explosives and you can get licensed for their use at NMT.

Re:Oh, man (1)

overshoot (39700) | about 3 months ago | (#47060243)

Well, yeah. Not surprising for a school of mines, after all.

As it happens, one of my kids did take explosives engineering there (as an elective) and I'm in the process of moving to Socorro.

Re:Oh, man (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47060853)

The tests shown in the article were conducted at the EMRTC at New Mexico Tech.

It worked so well for the beached whale (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47059291)

So in addition to scorched earth and stuff, but there will be a big debris field, and a huge hole. Depending on the size of the blast, maybe folks will get beachfront property out of the deal!

This was tried in San Fran in 1906 (4, Interesting)

HellYeahAutomaton (815542) | about 3 months ago | (#47059317)

"After the flames were extinguished, the explosives did nothing but create an avenue for the fires to spread during those first critical hours: Buildings and walls that might have served as firebreaks had been demolished.

The explosives also raised a dust that choked the lungs and impaired visibility. But perhaps the worst damage was the creation of even more fires as flaming debris ignited ruptured gas lines. Unwilling to admit responsibility for their collective mistakes, the Mayor, the Army, and the Fire Department all pointed fingers at each other, adding fuel to the administrative confusion that reigned during the fire."

http://mceer.buffalo.edu/1906_... [buffalo.edu]

Re:This was tried in San Fran in 1906 (2)

Thud457 (234763) | about 3 months ago | (#47059387)

Most wildfires aren't in urban areas. Unless you just had a 500-year earthquake, incendiary bombing, or Godzilla attack.

But, as others have pointed out, this works better for oil well fires because oil won't sit and smoulder for hours, then reignite.

Re:This was tried in San Fran in 1906 (1)

TheRealHocusLocus (2319802) | about 3 months ago | (#47062645)

But, as others have pointed out, this works better for oil well fires because oil won't sit and smoulder for hours, then reignite.

As a precursor to moving in and applying chemicals its sounds like a good idea. After the flames are displaced you could count on fires springing up again from pockets that remain above the autoignition temperature [engineeringtoolbox.com] of the materials but it would probably take awhile, you'd have some clear area and time to move in and quench them.

There is a good demonstration of dynamite quenching a flaming oil well here in The Fires of Kuwait [youtube.com] ... rewind and check out this whole mesmerizing documentary!

Re:This was tried in San Fran in 1906 (1)

Talderas (1212466) | about 3 months ago | (#47065001)

Oil cools fast, that's why it's very effective.

Re:This was tried in San Fran in 1906 (1)

theIsovist (1348209) | about 3 months ago | (#47060823)

To be fair, that was over 100 years ago and a completely different setting for wildfires. I would be the science behind this technique may have improved since then. But it does provide precedent for not fighting urban fires with explosives, which is hard to label as bad find.

Re:This was tried in San Fran in 1906 (1)

T.E.D. (34228) | about 3 months ago | (#47068797)

, the Mayor, the Army, and the Fire Department all pointed fingers at each other, adding fuel to the administrative confusion that reigned during the fire

Quick note to the folks at buffalo.edu: As a matter of English sentence design, perhaps it isn't the best idea to use a fire metaphor smack dab in the middle of a sentence talking about real-life fires. Unless what they mean was that the Mayor, the Army, and the Fire Department all burned to death in the fire while they were arguing.

In which case, well done. Carry on.

Re:This was tried in San Fran in 1906 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47077131)

Mod parent up, insightful and funny.

funny I was talking to my kids about this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47059321)

I though I had this idea first.

New? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47059433)

We used explosions to put out all the oil well fires in Iraq.

This sounds like the fantasy of many young men! (1)

TchrBabe (3589445) | about 3 months ago | (#47059467)

Combining burning things with blowing them up? I'm surprised there aren't more volunteers to conduct this experiment! Where's Johnny Knoxville when you need him?

Nuclear bomb tests prove it (4, Interesting)

Spy Handler (822350) | about 3 months ago | (#47059475)

Watch an old nuclear weapon test footage with trees in it. First you see the flash of light, and instantaneously the trees erupt in flames due to the intense radiation. Then a few seconds later, the shockwave (basically a strong air current) arrives and it puts the fire out.

You can substitute nuclear with a fuel-air bomb, which has the added benefit of sucking away all the oxygen in the area.

Re:Nuclear bomb tests prove it (1)

rrohbeck (944847) | about 3 months ago | (#47059627)

"Nuke it from orbit" was my first thought too.
But seriously, you'll need a lot of explosives to knock out a wildfire. Unless you detect it right after it ignited, it'll be at least acres in size and everything will be ready to re-ignite so you have to blow it out all at once.

Correction (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47059493)

Firefighters are reported to be quietly optimistic about the chance to play with explosives.

Where do I sign up to become a firefighter now?

next (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47059685)

Next is napalm

The phrase... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47059721)

..."What could possibly go wrong?" comes to mind.

sounds good (2, Funny)

Connie_Lingus (317691) | about 3 months ago | (#47059725)

what could possibly go wrong?

I wonder if "Big Wind" would work on wildfires (4, Interesting)

steveha (103154) | about 3 months ago | (#47059747)

In the movie Fires of Kuwait [wikipedia.org] , my favorite part showed a modified tank called "Big Wind".

Instead of a cannon, "Big Wind" has two jet engines from a MiG fighter plane, and it uses those to blow out fires the same way you might blow out a candle on a birthday cake, only at epic scale.

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/stilling-the-fires-of-war [caranddriver.com]

It's probably more practical, for wildfires, to use a helicopter to deliver explosive devices rather than drive a tank around. Setting up the water reservoirs in advance would be a problem also. The tank worked very well in Kuwait, though!

Re:I wonder if "Big Wind" would work on wildfires (1)

MattGWU (86623) | about 3 months ago | (#47060579)

I feel like that worked because the source of the fire is more or less a point (the wellhead) so you could point it at the fire *right there* and put it out. A wildfire spread over acres? No one real spot to point at, and when you move to blow out another spot, the fire has spread back to the spot you just extinguished. Why I'm skeptical of this explosives thing, unless they're talking about something that covers a very large area like a fuel air explosive somebody mentioned further up.

What could possibly go wrong? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47059865)

What happens when you play with dynamite. [youtube.com] .

The sound of raining whale pieces parts is hilarious.

This Week (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47059923)

On Mythbusters, we see if you can put out a fire with an obscenely large explosion!

Basic firefigting (1)

ModelX (182441) | about 3 months ago | (#47060141)

Any basic firefighting course will teach you there are two components to fire: oxygen and heat. If you remove either you will put out the fire. However, if there's enough heat left fire will reignite. That's why firefighters keep pouring water long after flames have been extinguished.

So an explosion will not stop the fire unless it also creates enough airflow to cool down whatever was burning. That will work for some materials but not for everything. Just remember how easily blowing at the barbecue charcoal brings back the flames.

Re:Basic firefigting (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47061437)

Any basic firefighting course will teach you there are two components to fire: oxygen and heat.

Two... I thought the fire triangle was three sided, oxygen, heat and FUEL. Fighting forest fires generally deals with the FUEL part because when dealing with large areas on fire, there is no way to smother it (remove the oxygen), and never enough water to cool it, so the only real solution you have is to limit the available fuel. Which, by the way, is why forest fires are so hard to fight, well that and they are usually in areas where it's difficult to get men and equipment in and out....

Bomb The Trees (1)

John Jorsett (171560) | about 3 months ago | (#47060175)

Nice slogan. What's next, Nuke The Whales?

Re: Bomb The Trees (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47063009)

Bomb the houses. If there is no property to protect, there is no reason to fight the fire.

not the same at all (1)

DriveDog (822962) | about 3 months ago | (#47060183)

I can think of a couple of of important differences off the bat...

1) spewing oil wells very quickly displace hot oil with cool oil, while a forest fire fuel just sits there, remaining hot

2) burning oil gushers are very compact, while forest fires are generally spread out

Worked for Galactica (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 3 months ago | (#47060309)

Deprive the fire of oxygen, that is, after you try flooding the viper launch bays with boroton.

Makes for better TV coverage too (1)

tomhath (637240) | about 3 months ago | (#47060325)

"Our reporter is live at the scene of the forest fire"

KABOOM

"Oops, not any more."

Wait a minute . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47060503)

Instead of hard work of digging trenches, lugging hoses, etc they'd get to blow shit up??!!! SIGN ME UP!! I WANNA BE A FIREMAN WHEN I GROW UP!

What could possibly go... (1)

Snufu (1049644) | about 3 months ago | (#47060711)

right?

I gotta ask (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about 3 months ago | (#47061985)

Discovered and researched by rednecks?

It's not going to scale up to wildfire size (1)

Tsu Dho Nimh (663417) | about 3 months ago | (#47063871)

Oil well fires are stationary points of flame a few tens of meters wide - lots of pressure behind them, but not much territory, and a single point of combustion where the fuel is coming out of the pipe. You can surround them.

Wildfires have flame fronts that are hundreds to thousands of meters wide, irregularly shaped, with a wall of flames and fuel sources that may be 5 to 30 meters high (or higher), and can be moving 60kph or more.

Look at this picture: http://media2.abc15.com//photo... [abc15.com]

Tell me where you will put the bomb to blow that fire out.

Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47064167)

So, recycle the old air force B52s into firefighting carpet bombers?

Old News (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47064371)

There is already a proven technik by a german company that uses Hoses that have smal ammounts of explosives inside and are filled with water.
Those hoses are placed alongside a fireline and the susequent explosion send the vaporized water into the fire.

The technik is still developed and I have read multiple newsitems over the Years,
Currently, after I quick seach I could only find this old article from 1995:
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/06/15/news/15iht-five.html

The last time I read about it the news was that although the technik was proven, goverments around the world felt not happy with permiting explosives in these scenarios.
This Problem should hit the Australian Method as well.

Actually the Geramn company even tried to build up an infrastructure that would have made it possible to keep the explsoves under military/starte controll and send the material out with experts only, when the need arises. Still as fas as I know no country has taken to that technik yet.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>